This Age Bullshit

I see that the Democrat Socialist Party wants to lower the voting age to 16, in the fond hope that this will give them a massive injection of (for a change) legal voters.

So… we’re going to let people who (according to the law) are too immature to drink beer, drive a car, sign a contract, have sex or get married etc., vote in elections?  (Never mind that until recently, you couldn’t vote till you were 21… (don’t get me started).

I say:  fine.  Let the kiddies vote — as long as  in acknowledging that they are mature enough to make informed decisions about our country’s political future, they are also mature enough to have sex, drink alcohol, drive a car, sign contracts, get married, leave school, buy handguns and semi-automatic rifles  — oh, and get drafted into the Armed Forces.  Also, their parents can turf them out of the house at age 16, and not be responsible for their well-being any longer.  And seeing as we’re going to be all equality and stuff, this has to apply to both girls and boys, as well as those still too fucked up unsure to decide which.

Let’s have these little fuckers see what it really  means to be an adult.  Voting is simple;  dealing with life away from elections is fucking hard.

Wut’s Da Cawst?

One of the (oh so many) bad things that came out of the Obama Years was that the word “trillion” (as in, “this will lead to a national debt of x trillion”) became normalized, in the way that after WWII, the word billion  became a substitute for million  in government-speak.  (I remember the rueful joke made in the early years of the Obama presidency, when the deficit and debt skyrocketed:  “What comes after a trillion?”  “Whatever it is, just don’t tell Obama.”)

So never mind the devaluation of the currency — an equal, and possibly worse devaluation occurred in political discourse.

Thus, when we learn that the fanciful dreams suggested policies of the radical Left will cost a hundred trillion dollars, we are somehow less alarmed because a “hundred” of something — anything — doesn’t sound like much.

And because Leftists (whether socialists, communists, Democrats, whatever) have a fairly cavalier attitude towards money (AOC:  “We’ll just create more!” — like that’s a simple exercise), this escalation of the quantity of money and the accompanying devaluation of the terminology just becomes another means whereby they can disguise the true effect (and intent) of whatever nonsense they dream up next.

This works especially well with two groups:

  • the extremely wealthy, who may be quite cognizant of the concept of vast sums of money being wasted, but who are sheltered from the consequences of political- and economic excesses by their own personal fortunes;  and
  • the very poor, for whom the purchase of a secondhand car or a modest house is about the limit of their concept of money, and who can therefore be fooled into accepting whatever large sums are bandied about both because they can’t comprehend it and because they won’t have to pay it.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that both groups are core constituencies of the Socialist Party, here and elsewhere.

It is we poor bastards in the middle who are going to get shafted, viz.:

I don’t want you to think that I’m making a damn joke about this, because I’m not.  At some point, and soon, there’s going to be a financial and economic reckoning — and we of the middle class are going to lose everything:  houses, jobs, savings, retirement benefits, the lot.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the range.

Whitey Not Wanted Here Either

Only in the Diversity Hell that is modern academia can such a thing occur:

“Refusing Institutional Whiteness: Possibilities, Alternatives, and Beyond”

…with the kicker:

“Whiteness continues to be a crucial problem in our English department.”

Also English, but that’s no doubt the topic of next  month’s seminar.

To put this into perspective, let’s just imagine a statement: “Blackness continues to be a crucial problem in our Blues Studies department.”

Or we don’t imagine anything, but instead just make the necessary preparations.

Idea

Saw this pic (detail of #90 in the series) via one of Sarah’s posts.  It’s of a Mongolian prisoner circa 1913:

…and it got me thinking.  Why doesn’t this become standard prison attire for violent criminals in our system?  (I can think of only one improvement, and that’s to add a shackle to the ankle so that the scumbag can’t use the chain as a weapon.)  It would make prison breaks somewhat… problematic, shall we say;  and to transport a few convicts as a group simply requires the addition of another length of chain.

And please  tell me why the thought of a hundred or so MS-13 or Crips gang members thus attired in San Quentin doesn’t give you the Warm & Fuzzies…

One More Thing

The Christchurch terrorist was probably frightened off when he thought that the heroic guy who chased after him was armed, as noted here:

[Aziz] said the gunman ran back to his car to get another gun, so he threw a credit card machine at him.
He said he could hear his two youngest sons, 11 and five, urging him to come back inside.
The gunman returned firing but Mr Aziz said he ran past parked cars which prevented him from being shot. Mr Aziz spotted a gun the attacker had dropped and picked it up. He pointed it and squeezed the trigger but it was empty. He said the gunman ran back to the car for a second time to grab another weapon.
‘He gets into his car and I just got the gun and threw it on his window like an arrow and blasted his window,’ he said. ‘The windshield shattered, that’s why he got scared.’
He said the gunman was cursing at him, yelling that he was going to kill them all.
But he drove away and Mr Aziz said he chased the car down the street to a red light before it made a U-turn and sped away.

Couple-three points to be made here.  Firstly, all praise and kudos to Our Hero — I mean, chasing down a gunman with a card-reader?  Dude!  And considering that Aziz came from Afghanistan, this was probably a walk in the park by comparison to what he’s seen.  (“Only one  gunman?  Phooey.  Try ten  gunmen — now that’s  scary.”)

Secondly, note that even though Aziz was unarmed, the asshole thought  he had a gun and was shooting at him — hence the flight, and eventual capture.  I leave it to the imagination as to what might have happened had a few congregants been armed, but we all know that story.  Too bad it’s illegal to defend yourself with a gun in KiwiLand — because, of course, nothing bad has ever happened in New Zealand to justify that.  Until something bad did  happen.  And this was really  bad.

Finally, if any of those Muslim worshipers in Christchurch have ever supported, even philosophically, the acts of Muslim terrorism (and I’ll bet there are a few), just remember how it felt when it was happening to you.  I know this prick was a nutcase — but so are the extremist Muslims who do the same, or worse, to non-Muslims.

Jihad  cuts both ways, doesn’t it?